Most violent crime in Canada does not involve firearms

Firearms
are present in a relatively small proportion of all police-reported violent crime
in reporting provinces and territories. Excluding Quebec, police reported approximately 5,600
victims of violent crime where a firearm was present in 2012, a rate of 21
victims for every 100,000 population (Table 1A). In comparison, the rate of victims
of non-firearm-related violent crime was about 49 times higher, at 1,033
victims per 100,000 population.

Firearm-related
violent crime accounted for 2% of all victims of violent crime in 2012, a
proportion that has remained stable over the past four years. For the large
majority (81%) of victims of violent crime, there was no weapon present during
the commission of the offence.1 A
weapon other than a firearm, such as a knife or blunt instrument, was present
in 17% of violent offences.

Although
violent crime is generally decreasing, the rate of firearm-related violent
crime is decreasing at a faster pace than violent crime that does not involve
firearms. There were about 1,800 fewer victims of firearm-related violent crime
in 2012 than there were in 2009, resulting in a 27% decrease in the rate of
firearm-related violent crime (Chart 1).2 Since
2009, the rate of violent offences involving other weapons has decreased 9%,
while the rate of offences involving the use of physical force, threat, or no
weapon has decreased 14%.

Text box
2
Firearm-related violent crime and physical injury

The
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey includes two distinct ways of measuring
firearm-related violent crime in Canada: most serious weapon
present, which is used throughout this Juristat, and weapon causing
injury, which is used in this text box.

Most
serious weapon present collects information on the most serious weapon present during
the commission of the crime, regardless of whether or not the weapon was used.
This variable captures incidents where a firearm was used against a victim
causing injury, used against a victim without causing injury (i.e., as a
threat), or was present during the offence and was not used in any manner. It
is not possible to distinguish which of these scenarios occurred.

Weapon
causing injury indicates
the type of weapon used during the commission of a violent offence if the
victim suffered a physical injury as a result of a weapon. While this captures
information on the weapon used against victims, it does not include information
on weapons used if no injury was suffered (e.g., if a victim was threatened
with a weapon but the use did not cause physical injury). If multiple weapons
were used to inflict injury, the weapon that was used to cause the most
physical injury is recorded. Weapon causing injury does not capture incidents
where the firearm was used or fired but missed the victim.

A large
majority of injuries that occur as the result of a violent crime are not caused
by firearms. In 2012, police reported approximately 134,000 victims of violent
crime who suffered at least minor physical injury, accounting for under half
(47%) of all victims of violent crime (Table 1B). Of these victims, about 107,600
were injured by the use of physical force, and a further 24,776 were injured by
the use of a non-firearm weapon. The remaining 1% of these victims (1,325) were
injured due to the use of a firearm.

While a small minority
of victims of violent crime are injured due to the use of a firearm, these
injuries are typically more serious than those caused by the use of other
weapons or physical force. The use of a firearm resulted in major physical
injury or death of the victim in 33% of incidents where an injury was suffered,
a higher proportion than violent offences involving other weapons (14%) or
physical force (4%) (Text box chart 1).

Fewer homicides committed by strangers, more by
criminal associates

Despite the increased number of victims reported in 2015, increases
were not equal across all types of homicides when considering relationship
types. Relationship information is available for solved homicides for
which an accused has been identified. Decades of relationship information
indicates that homicides are frequently committed by someone known to the
victim.Note11 In 2015, 87% of victims knew the accused involved in their
death (Table 7). This proportion increased from
2014 where a reported 82% of victims knew the accused.Note12

The number of victims killed by a stranger in 2015 declined to 58,
from 73 reported in 2014. As such homicides committed by strangers
accounted for 13% of homicides in 2015 compared to 18% the year before
(Table 7). In comparison, police reported an increase in the number of
homicides committed by a person with whom the victim had a criminal
relationship (54 in 2015 compared to 29 in 2014).

Increases were also reported in the number of homicides committed
by family members other than current or ex-spouses or common law partners.
These homicides increased from 73 to 99 in 2015. This was largely due to
an increase in homicides committed by extended family members (Table 7).

There were 83 intimate partner homicides reported in Canada in
2015, 3 less than in 2014 (Table 7). The rate of intimate partner
homicides remained relatively stable in 2015 at 0.28 per 100,000
population aged 15 and older, which followed a reported increase in the
previous year. The rate of female intimate partner homicide remained
unchanged from 2014 (0.46 per 100,000 population for both years); while
that for males decrease slightly from 0.11 in the previous year to 0.09 in
2015.

Majority of homicide victims and accused persons were
male

Overall, males account for the majority of both homicide victims
and accused persons. In 2015, 71% of homicide victims and 88% of homicide
accused were male, findings that have remained consistent over the past 10
years.

Rates of homicide among male victims were highest for those 25 to
34 years of age (4.38 per 100,000 population), followed by 18 to 24 year
olds (4.29). For females, the highest homicide rate was reported for those
aged 18 to 24 years (1.46), followed closely by females aged 25 to 34
years (1.41) (see CANSIM table 253-0003).

The rate of accused persons amongst the male population in 2015
was highest for those 18 to 24 years of age (8.80 per 100,000 population).
Among females, the rate of being accused of homicide in 2015 was highest
for those aged 25 to 34 years (0.89).

Increase in number and rate of youth accused of
homicide from previous year

In 2015, youth aged 12 to 17 accounted for 7% of the 525 accused
persons reported in that year. This is consistent with findings reported
over the past 4 years, where the proportion of youth accused has accounted
for less than 10% of the total accused persons (see CANSIM table 253-0003).

The rate of youth accused of homicide increased, however, by 22%
from the previous year. Police reported in 2015 that there were 1.51 youth
accused of homicide for every 100,000 youth aged 12 to 17 in Canada,
compared with a rate of 1.24 in 2014. Overall, there were 35 youth accused
of homicide in 2015, 6 more than the previous year.

Youth accused of homicide in 2015 were two times more likely to be
involved in a gang-related incident compared to adults (20% of youth
accused compared to 10% of adults accused).Note13

Firearm-related homicides increase in 2012

Homicides
account for very few violent crimes in Canada (Perreault 2013), yet are often used as a barometer for
the level of violence within a society (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2011).
There were 172 homicides committed with a firearm in 2012, 14 more than the
previous year (Table 3). Consistent with previous years,
shootings, along with stabbings, were the most common methods used to commit
homicide in 2012, accounting for 33% and 31% of all homicides, respectively.
Beating (21%) was the next most frequent cause of death.

After
reaching its lowest rate since 1971 in 2011, the rate of firearm-related
homicide increased 8% to 0.49 per 100,000 population in 2012. Similar to the
overall homicide rate (Boyce and Cotter 2013), the rate of
firearm-related homicide peaked in 1975 (1.26 per 100,000 population), and then
began to decrease. Following an increase in the early 1990s, the
firearm-related homicide rate has generally been declining (Chart 3)

Most firearm-related homicides involve handguns

Handguns
are the most frequently used firearm in the commission of homicide. Handguns
were used in the majority (62%) of firearm-related homicides in 2012, followed
by rifles or shotguns (23%). Prior to 1991, firearm-related homicides were most
frequently committed with a rifle or shotgun.

In the
early 1990s, the rate of homicides committed with a handgun surpassed that of
homicides committed with a rifle or shotgun for the first time. Since 1995,
handguns have accounted for the majority of firearm-related homicides (Chart
5).

Firearm homicides more likely to be gang-related

Firearm-related
homicides are more likely to be related to organized crime or street gang
activity than homicides committed without the use of a firearm.8 Over
the past two decades, the rate of gang-related homicide committed with a
firearm has been consistently higher than the rate of gang-related homicide
committed with another weapon (Chart 6).

In 2012,
about half (46%) of all homicides committed with a firearm were gang-related,
compared to fewer than one in ten homicides committed with another type of
weapon or with physical force (8% and 5%, respectively). Three-quarters (75%)
of gang-related homicides involving firearms were committed with the use of a
handgun, with fully automatic firearms (10%) the next most frequently used type
of firearm in gang-related homicides.

Firearm-related robbery continues to decline

Similar
to the long-term trend in the firearm-related homicide rate, the rate of
firearm-related robbery has also been decreasing.9 In
2012, there were 10 firearm-related robberies per 100,000 population,
a decrease of 55% from 1998 (Chart 7).10 This
decrease in firearm-related robbery has driven the overall decrease in the rate
of robbery, which was 27% lower in 2012 than in 1998. Robbery which involved
the use of some other type of weapon was at a rate 36% lower in 2012 than in
1998, whereas the rate of robbery that did not involve a weapon peaked in 2006,
but was 8% lower in 2012 than it was in 1998.

Firearm-related
violent crime varies across the provinces and territories. Among the reporting
provinces, consistent with trends in crime in general (Perreault 2013), rates of firearm-related violent crime
were highest in Saskatchewan (34 per 100,000
population) and Manitoba
(32 per 100,000) (Table 4, Chart 8). Saskatchewan
and Manitoba
also reported the highest rates of non-firearm-related violent crime among
reporting provinces in 2012 (1,879 and 1,667 per 100,000 population,
respectively). In contrast, rates of firearm-related violent crime were lowest
in Prince Edward Island (11 per 100,000) and Newfoundland and Labrador
(15 per 100,000).

Rates of
violent crime are generally higher in the territories than in the provinces (Perreault 2013). Nunavut
(154 per 100,000 population) and the Northwest
Territories (39 per 100,000) had firearm-related
violent crime rates that were higher than any reporting province. Yukon (17 per 100,000), on the other hand, had a
firearm-related violent crime rate that was lower than all but three reporting
provinces: Ontario, Newfoundland
and Labrador, and Prince Edward
Island. All three territories reported non-firearm-related
violent crime rates higher than any province.

Handguns
are the most frequently present type of firearm in violent crime, and the rate
and proportion of their presence differs across the provinces. Looking at the use
of handguns specifically, the highest rate among reporting provinces was found
in Nova Scotia (16 per 100,000 population),
followed by British Columbia
(15 per 100,000) (data not shown). Saskatchewan
(9 per 100,000) and Manitoba
(11 per 100,000), in contrast, recorded rates of handgun-related violent crime
that were below the national average (12 per 100,000). While Ontario’s rate of handgun-related violent
crime was virtually equal to the rate of all reporting provinces and
territories, about two-thirds (68%) of firearm-related violent crime involved
handguns, the highest such proportion among the provinces and territories (Table 5).

While Saskatchewan and Manitoba
ranked highest among provinces in terms of firearm-related violent crime, they
did not have the highest provincial rates of firearm-related homicides. In
2012, Nova Scotia (0.84 per 100,000
population) and Alberta
(0.75 per 100,000) recorded the highest rates of firearm-related homicide among
the provinces. While both Nova Scotia and Alberta had one more firearm-related homicide than the
previous year, much of the overall increase in firearm-related homicides was
driven by an increase in Ontario
(+11). For the first time since 2006, there were no firearm-related homicides
in any of the territories. In addition, there were no firearm-related homicides
in Prince Edward Island
for the 23rd consecutive year.

Increase in number and rate of youth accused of
homicide from previous year

In 2015, youth aged 12 to 17 accounted for 7% of the 525 accused
persons reported in that year. This is consistent with findings reported
over the past 4 years, where the proportion of youth accused has accounted
for less than 10% of the total accused persons (see CANSIM table 253-0003).

The rate of youth accused of homicide increased, however, by 22%
from the previous year. Police reported in 2015 that there were 1.51 youth
accused of homicide for every 100,000 youth aged 12 to 17 in Canada,
compared with a rate of 1.24 in 2014. Overall, there were 35 youth accused
of homicide in 2015, 6 more than the previous year.

Youth accused of homicide in 2015 were two times more likely to be
involved in a gang-related incident compared to adults (20% of youth
accused compared to 10% of adults accused).Note13

Opiodis
killed 2861 people in the year 2016 and 1460 from January 2017 to June 2017;
gun related deaths are 250 ish per year; but the Liberals always include
police shootings so that you have a higher number to help their deception for
gun crimes and the need for gun control when there is no need for it, as criminals don't obey the law to begin with. Its what makes them criminals after all.

Liberals
lie and deceive people for their own social and/or financial gain. It is of no
wonder that they cater to the criminals as the Liberals are the same breed. It
is evident in the gas plant hearing, as the Liberals do not answer a single
question. Any other human being in that situation and/or in a court room would
be held for contempt of court.

The
Liberals spend money like children. Ontario
currently pays $1 billion in interest. That is $1,000,000,000 per month. They
raise prices of homes and land so they could benefit from more taxes to be
collected; or just flat out sell it other neath your nose to Spain perhaps. The Liberals are such paranoid freaks, its no wonder they want gun control. Hitler did the same to the Jewish people prior to the beginning of WW2. And our Liberals on top of that, tax a tax "...hey, why not guys? What could possibly go wrong; we got this!...more revenue" and that is insane. They truly are way out in the left field.Ontario’s
hydro; another Liberal mess. We pay alot for electricity. CEO makes $4 million a year so its of no wonder, as the money has to come from comewhere. Lets not forget the other 10,000 hydro workers that make over $100,000/yr.
yet, the Ontario
hydro PAYS the south $70 million, that is $70,000,000 to take our surplus
electricity. The Liberals are also raising corporate tax which will drive even
more business out of the province. Where is this Cisco plant that was supposed
to open in Ontario
to add jobs? …..nowhere cause the company could not afford to operate here in
Ontario.

The
Liberals also have a news media, the CBC, which is funded by the Liberals, our
tax dollars. This media is controlled and directed by the Liberal party.

Bottom line
is, the Liberals are running a dictatorship bureaucracy; otherwise, there
wouldn’t exist a so called ‘whipped vote’ within the parliament; which
essentially means that the MP’s have to vote with the
party and not what their citizens in their own riding want. Sad!!! Liberals are a bunch of paranoid freaks that
want absolute control. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the
Liberals are well on their way.